West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
One of the other wrong-headed arguments I've seen is that the killing of Osama bin Laden should not be used as a partisan issue mostly from people on the Republican side who immediately turned the Sept. 11th attacks into a partisan issue and used the fear of terrorism (thereby helping the terrorists achieve their goal of spreading fear) as a cudgel.
One of their reasons for not wanting to make the killing of bin Laden a partisan issue is to deny President Obama his full credit. They want President George W. Bush to receive credit to, even though six months after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush said:
I don't know where he is. I really just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.
As early as October 2001, according to Gen. Tommy Franks, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were diverting resources to prepare for the Iraq war. In November 2001, bin Laden escaped from Tora Bora in Afghanistan. Bush even disbanded the team searching for bin Laden in 2006.
What many of their Republicans and their apologists are seeking to do here is to ignore that reality and replace it with one more beneficial to them.
Let us never forget the horrors inflicted upon our nation by President George W. Bush and the Other President Dick Cheney. This originally appeared in November 2007 at Daily Kos. Carnacki
At this point in the rule of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, I thought I had reached shock fatigue. We've seen illegal invasions, torture, unprecedented levels of corruption, a warrantless wiretapping on a nationwide scale, and an erosion of national credibility on everything from the environment to the rule of law.
Yet this morning I read a story that filled me anew with fresh outrage and I think exemplifies the horrors - the absolute horrors - of this administration and the political ideology behind them.
The article is in Vanity Fair's November edition, The People vs. the Profiteers. (If this was diaried earlier this month, my apologies. I did a search on several key words and did not see it. Vanity Fair is a very thick magazine and I read it from front to back so I usually read it spaced out over the entire month).
In it, the writer, David Rose, covers how an attorney, Alan Grayson, has led a campaign against government corruption. He's done so for 16 years. In the past the Department of Justice often allied with him to root out corrupt officials. But when it has come to the Iraq war, the DOJ has thrown up roadblock after roadblock.
In this administration corruption on a massive scale is a statistic. It's an example Rose uses from among the cases that is the outrage.
Consider the case of Grayson's client Bud Conyers, a big, bearded 43-year-old who lives with his ex-wife and her nine children, four of them his, in Enid, Oklahoma. Conyers worked in Iraq as a driver for Kellogg, Brown & Root. Spun off by Halliburton as an independent concern in April, KBR is the world's fifth-largest construction company. Before the war started, the Pentagon awarded it two huge contracts: one, now terminated, to restore the Iraqi oil industry, and another, still in effect, to provide a wide array of logistical-support services to the U.S. military.
In the midday heat of June 16, 2003, Conyers was summoned to fix a broken refrigerated truck-a "reefer," in contractor parlance-at Log Base Seitz, on the edge of Baghdad's airport. He and his colleagues had barely begun to inspect the sealed trailer when they found themselves reeling from a nauseating stench. The freezer was powered by the engine, and only after they got it running again, several hours later, did they dare open the doors.
The trailer, unit number R-89, had been lying idle for two weeks, Conyers says, in temperatures that daily reached 120 degrees. "Inside, there were 15 human bodies," he recalls. "A lot of liquid stuff had just seeped out. There were body parts on the floor: eyes, fingers. The goo started seeping toward us. Boom! We shut the doors again." The corpses were Iraqis, who had been placed in the truck by a U.S. Army mortuary unit that was operating in the area. That evening, Conyers's colleague Wallace R. Wynia filed an official report: "On account of the heat the bodies were decomposing rapidly.... The inside of the trailer was awful."
(As an aside, I have smelled the sickly scent stench of putrified corpses more times than I care to recall. It is one of the worst smells in existence. I cannot imagine what 15 trapped inside a metal trailer for two weeks in the desert heat would have been like.)
Under any consideration, the rule of civilian or military regulations or laws, religious taboos, and basic human decency, there are prohibitions against carrying food and water in the same containers that had been used to carry human corpses - yet alone putrid corpses.
But that is exactly what is being done in Iraq. To our soldiers. With our tax dollars.
But when Bud Conyers next caught sight of trailer R-89, about a month later, it was packed not with human casualties but with bags of ice-ice that was going into drinks served to American troops. He took photographs, showing the ice bags, the trailer number, and the wooden decking, which appeared to be stained red. Another former KBR employee, James Logsdon, who now works as a police officer near Enid, says he first saw R-89 about a week after Conyers's grisly discovery. "You could still see a little bit of matter from the bodies, stuff that looked kind of pearly, and blood from the stomachs. It hadn't even been hosed down. Afterwards, I saw that truck in the P.W.C.-the public warehouse center-several times. There's nothing there except food and ice. It was backed up to a dock, being loaded."
This is where a Republican ideology leads us. The for-profit contractor used a refrigerated tractor trailer permeated with human remains in the wood floor and on the floor itself to carry ice and probably food.
Profit over people - even when it comes to the troops they claim to support. They outsourced a basic government service of the feed and care of the troops for a for-profit enterprise which didn't care about their health or human decency.
It came down to a shortage of refrigerated trucks. Rather than buy more, Kellough Brown and Root kept it running from corpse hauling to food hauling. Conyers was fired by KBR for not being a "team player."
How KBR treated Conyers would itself be an outrage but after hauling ice for human consumption with the remains of putrid corpses, anything KBR does under that pales in comparison. The entire story is well worth a read, including how the DOJ is using a provision of the whistle-blower law probably to keep incidents like this covered up rather than to investigate them as it should.
Grayson has hope that one day the deep-rooted profiteering and corruption of the Iraq war will come to light.
There are a few encouraging signs that a day of reckoning is drawing near. Committees in both the House and the Senate have held hearings on contracting in Iraq, and several plan to hold more. Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, has introduced a War Profiteering Prevention Act, which would make it much easier to investigate corrupt contractors and call them to account. And in August, the news that tens of thousands of weapons intended for Iraqi security forces had vanished or been stolen prompted the Pentagon to announce that its inspector general, Claude M. Kicklighter, would lead an 18-person team to investigate "contracting practices" in Iraq.
In the more distant future, a Democratic administration might open up the vaults and expose the American public to the scale of what has been looted. "What we have seen up to now is the worst of the worst in terms of a deliberate cover-up," Grayson says. But if and when it comes to an end, he thinks it's entirely possible that Congress will appoint a special prosecutor-one whose targets might one day reach "an extremely high level."
We can only hope. But I think the stench will linger forever.
Her awesomeness leaves me speechless.
John Yoo:)Orange County Something about Berkeley being a hippie magnet.
Update: (by Clem G.) Money quote from Harpers article:
But Yoo musters some defense nevertheless:
These memos I wrote were not for public consumption. They lack a certain polish, I think-would have been better to explain government policy rather than try to give unvarnished, straight-talk legal advice.
Of course, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, OLC memos fix government legal policy and are binding on all government agencies. The Justice Department has made a practice of publishing them for more than a century. But Yoo does not feel constrained by these facts when he speaks with the popular media; the facts might complicate things.
I think of myself one half of an okay parent duo. We have raised three responsible adults, so far, and the three remaining school kids are a joy to their teachers.
I have delighted, despite my math degree, in challenging them with word. I try to use one they don't know and tell them to look it up in Websters. The oldest likes to be challenged by multiple crosswords puzzles everyday. All have taken a foreign language when offered.
~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~
Well, today I learned a new word.
I have been reading several farewell essays to the man who will be president for less hours than I can count on by fingers and toes. I sure am looking forward to wince-free State of the Union addresses again.
Since 1983, coal companies have had to follow a stream buffer zone rule, which said their mining could not disturb areas within 100 feet of streams. When the Bush administration first proposed to end this stream buffer zone last year, over 40,000 citizens responded their outrage to the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement.
Disregarding this remarkable opposition, the Bush administration has moved the proposed change to the EPA, which now has 30 days to review the change, and must issue a written statement that the new regulations would comply with the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts.
If this ruling is passed, the Appalachian coal fields, the backbone of our first American frontier -- and the very place that gave birth to abolitionist, labor and civil rights triumphs, Black History Month, literary naturalism and the first Nobel Prize for Literature to an American woman (Pearl Buck), the godmother of muckraking journalism, and a treasury of music -- and the focus of the swing states of this election, will brace itself for the most brutal strip mining campaign in our history.
If we don't hire Anne Barth to represent us in Congress, we're missing out on a huge opportunity to have someone great in office.
From an email:
CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Responding to the continuing failures of the fiscal policies enacted by George W. Bush and Shelley Moore Capito, the Democratic nominee for West Virginia's Second Congressional District - Anne Barth - continues to talk directly with voters across the district about the need to bring fiscal responsibility to Washington and return America's focus to our needs here at home.
On Monday, Anne Barth and the Majority Leader of the United
States House of Representatives, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) co-hosted a roundtable discussion with local elected officials, business leaders and constituents in Martinsburg to talk about meeting America's infrastructure needs during a time of economic uncertainty and misguided priorities.
"We are spending $12 billion per month in Iraq, and their government has an $80 billion surplus due to high oil prices," Anne Barth said. "The Iraqis are getting new roads, bridges and schools, but back here in West Virginia we need those things too. I want the people of Iraq succeed and join the modern world, but I believe America should turn its attention back to our own needs here at home."
Majority Leader Hoyer echoed Barth's sentiments, adding that "Anne Barth knows how to get things done. She knows the state and the district, and she knows how things get done in Washington. I look forward to working with her in Congress - we need her there to help us meet the challenges we are facing as a country."
On Tuesday morning, Anne Barth hit the statewide radio airwaves to discuss the Bush Administration's proposed bailout that would give Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson unprecedented authorization to spend $700 billion in taxpayer money to buy up souring mortgages from the same companies that caused the crisis.
"When the Bush Administration says they need $700 billion and they need it fast, I think it's a good time for the American public to tap on the brakes," Barth said.
"The failed policies of the Bush Administration, which Mrs. Capito has supported time and time again, have resulted in bailout after bailout," Barth continued. "You don't have to be an economist to know that sound financial policies don't result in repeated bailouts."
"we had allowed Bush and Capito to privatize our Social Security, that money would probably be in this Wall Street bailout too," Barth warned.
During 8 years of Bush and Capito:
* Job creation has been low, real family income has declined and national savings has declined
* We have financed huge tax cuts for the most fortunate while chipping away at funding for education, health care and infrastructure necessary to the strength of our economy and our country
* Gas prices have doubled, while Big Oil gets multi-billion dollar subsidies
* America is borrowing from the Chinese to pay the Saudis for oil
* Wall Street gets the bailouts and Main Street pays the tab for it
"The greatest judge will be history. Mistakes have been made."
History has already judged, Ms. Capito. Seven years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11th, the mastermind Osama bin Laden remains free. He remains free because George W. Bush - with your endorsement and support - diverted troops and resources from the hunt for bin Laden to attack Iraq, a country we knew had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks.
Today of all days, Ms. Capito, you should bow your head in shame and pray for the forgiveness of the dead from Sept. 11th for the justice delayed that is owed them.
Over and over again we've seen a pattern from Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-Big Oil). When Democrats in Congress tried to take steps to do what the American people want and bring the troops home from Iraq, Capito called it "playing politics." But when George W. Bush and his administration plays politics with the lives of troops, we hear only silence from her. So much for her "independence." The only conclusion that can be reached: Capito likes it when Bush plays politics with the lives of soldiers.
Capito on March 23, 2007 regarding a Congressional bill in support of timelines:
"By giving our enemy a date-certain timeline for withdrawal, we are simply asking them to duck into the shadows and wait for us to leave. Such timelines hog-tie the hands of our commanders in the field and essentially hand our enemy a roadmap to victory.
Yet the Bush administration reached a timeline agreement with the Iraqi government as reported on Aug. 22, 2008 that sets specific dates.
A deal between American and Iraqi officials was given fresh impetus by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's surprise visit to Baghdad on Thursday. Ms. Rice met with Mr. Maliki and other Iraqi leaders and confirmed that both sides saw the value in "aspirational timetables" to govern the continuing role, mission and size of American forces in Iraq.
She declined to discuss the timing, saying that to go into details of the talks "would be inappropriate at this time." Instead, she reiterated the consistent American position that decisions must be based on events, not timetables.
...
Iraqi officials were more forthcoming with their interpretation of the draft agreement. In an interview by telephone in Baghdad, Mohammad Hamoud, the chief Iraqi negotiator, said that the draft contained two dates: June 30, 2009, for the withdrawal of American forces from "cities and villages" and Dec. 31, 2011, for combat troops to leave the country altogether.
But we heard nothing from Capito after Bush and the Iraqis agreed, in Capito's own words, to giving the enemy "a roadmap to victory."
Capito also on March 23, 2007 expressed her "belief" that decisions should be left to the commanders on the ground:
"Congress has the power of the purse, but it should not micromanage this war or any war by making decisions best left for those on the battlefield. I want our troops to come home, but I want that decision to be made by our commanders who are basing their decisions on the conditions on the ground and in what is best for the security of our nation."
Yet we find out today from Bob Woodward's interviews with Bush and those very same commanders on the ground and in the Pentagon that Bush made decisions for political reasons. He took the decisions out of the hands of the commanders and made the country less safe.
At the Joint Chiefs of Staff in late November 2006, Gen. Peter Pace was facing every chairman's nightmare: a potential revolt of the other chiefs. Two months earlier, the JCS had convened a special team of colonels to recommend options for reversing the deteriorating situation in Iraq. Now, it appeared that the chiefs' and colonels' advice was being marginalized, if not ignored, by the White House.
During a JCS meeting with the colonels Nov. 20, Chairman Pace dropped a bomb: The White House was considering a "surge" of additional troops to quell the violence in Iraq. "Would it be a good idea?" Pace asked the group. "If so, what would you do with five more brigades?" That amounted to 20,000 to 30,000 more troops, depending on the number of support personnel.
Pace's question caught the chiefs and colonels off guard. The JCS hadn't recommended a surge, and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Iraq commander, was opposed to one of that magnitude. Where had this come from? Was it a serious option? Was it already a done deal?
Pace said he had another White House meeting in two days. "I want to be able to give the president a recommendation on what's doable," he said.
A rift had been growing between the country's military and civilian leadership, and in several JCS meetings that November, the chiefs' frustrations burst into the open. They had all but dismissed the surge option, worried that the armed forces were already stretched to the breaking point.
Where is Capito's criticism that she made before of politicians making decisions instead of the "commanders on the ground"?
It was so important to her that Capito made that point the basis of another statement on Nov. 14, 2007:
"This is yet another politically motivated resolution by the Majority that would undercut the decision-making power of commanders on the ground in Iraq," said Capito.
And yet that is what top Pentagon officials told Bob Woodward Bush did. Bush was motivated by politics at home to take away their decision to withdraw troops in order to have his escalation, his "surge" that they thought stretched the military to the breaking point and left the country with out a strategic reserve in the event of another crisis elsewhere:
The president was not listening to Casey's boss, Gen. John P. Abizaid at Central Command, anymore, either.
"Yeah, I know," the president said to Abizaid at a National Security Council session in December, "you're going to tell me you're against the surge."
Yes, Abizaid replied, and then presented his argument that U.S. forces needed to get out of Iraq in order to win.
"The U.S. presence helps to keep a lid on," Bush responded. There were other benefits. A surge would "also help here at home, since for many the measure of success is reduction in violence," Bush said. "And it'll help [Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-] Maliki to get control of the situation. A heavier presence will buy time for his government."
The rest of Iraq wasn't as tenuous as Baghdad, Abizaid said. "But it's the capital city that looks chaotic," Bush said. "And when your capital city looks chaotic, it's hard to sustain your position, whether at home or abroad."
Clearly Bush was motivated by political reasons. Think that's just my interpretation:
Pace, Schoomaker and Casey found themselves badly out of sync with the White House in the fall of 2006, finally losing control of the war strategy altogether after the midterm elections. Schoomaker was outraged when he saw news coverage that retired Gen. Jack Keane, the former Army vice chief of staff, had briefed the president Dec. 11 about a new Iraq strategy being proposed by the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative think tank.
"When does AEI start trumping the Joint Chiefs of Staff on this stuff?" Schoomaker asked at the next chiefs' meeting.
Yet where is Capito's criticism of Bush making "politically motivated" decisions that tied the hands of the commanders on the ground?
She made that criticism to justify her roadblocking of legislation to do EXACTLY what the generals were wanting to do - to pull the troops out to let the Iraqis take over. Yet we hear only silence from her now.
She's not independent. She's a coward who only does what Bush and the Republican leaders tell her to do. Capito knew the surge would not work. She said as much:
However, I have grave concerns regarding the call for increased American troop numbers in Iraq and am skeptical of this new plan's success. I believe the escalating sectarian violence in Iraq requires a political solution, not a military solution rooted in increased numbers of American troops.
Never forget this. Despite expressing those "concerns," Capito backed it anyway. She made the politically motivated decision to back Bush's politically motivated surge and then she accused Democrats and Republicans who opposed the surge and sought to bring the troops home of tying the hands of the commanders in the field, when that is exactly what she supported George W. Bush in doing.
How many died since she made the decision to back the president playing politics with the lives of soldiers instead of standing up and representing the American people?
Capito shouldn't be running for reelection. She should be hanging her head in shame.
We have a chance to elect a Congressional representative who wants to end the war in Iraq quickly and responsibly.
Here's Anne Barth's position:
We must focus on training the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own security soon, set benchmarks for the Iraqi military, and give more emphasis to diplomatic strategies.
The war in Iraq has had a serious impact on our military, and our brave men and women are stretched thin by extended deployments. In Congress, I will work to strengthen America's national security and refocus on the terrorist threats around the globe that are currently ignored.
Look how closely it mirrors the exact view held by the commanders on the ground - the same ones whose views Capito said were so important and for years she ignored as Bush played politics and others paid the ultimate price.
Aug. 6, 2001 - Presidential Daily Briefing. Bin Laden determined to attack in the United States. Bush stayed on vacation in Texas. His reaction:
...an unnamed CIA briefer who flew to Bush's Texas ranch during the scary summer of 2001, amid a flurry of reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president's attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."
Sept. 11, 2001 - While the planes struck, Bush pissed his pants and froze after his chief of staff whispered in his ear. He spent the rest of the day flying from air base to air base.
March 12, 2002 - Asked about Osama bin Laden at a press conference, Bush replied: "So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you."
...
For the Republicans to look at their greatest failure as something to evoke to cheer as they did last night at their national convention shows how far they have sunk as an institution. They are detached from reality. They are trying to rewrite history. They are not a political party. They are a cult.
Copyright 2011 West Virginia Blue
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, dedicated volunteers and participation by members of this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong solely to their respective authors.
